Posted
by
timothyon Tuesday May 20, 2014 @11:38AM
from the force-breeds-resistance dept.

Lucas123 (935744) writes "When two gun stores attempted to sell the nation's first integrated smart gun, the iP1, gun advocacy groups were charged in media reports with organizing protests that lead to the stores pulling the guns from their shelves or reneging on their promise to sell them in the first place. But, the National Rifle Association and the National Shooting Sports Foundation say they do not oppose smart gun technology, which they call "authorized user recognition" firearms. "We do oppose any government mandate of this technology, however. The marketplace should decide," Mike Bazinet, a spokesman for the NSSF, wrote in an email reply to Computerworld. However, the argument for others goes that if stores begin selling smart guns, then legislators will draft laws requiring the technology."

That just means that the technology is practical for everyday use. That doesn't mean a mandate is appropriate, however. Given why the guns are even allowed in the first place, and considering recent cybersecurity issues, requiring government-mandated software be installed on all guns seems like a bad idea to me.

Why mandate it though? I'm generally much more pro-gun control than your average slashdotter, but I don't see a point. Most gun deaths are suicide [denverpost.com], which smart guns won't prevent. [slashdot.org]

According to this webpage (maybe not the best source) [stateofenlightenment.com] most guns possessed by criminals appear to be handguns from friends or family. The fingerprint method, if it can't be reset, might be able to make a dent in those if it couldn't be easily disabled or updated, but that doesn't seem likely. The watch version (where a w

Since when did the Constitution say that the police should write the laws? If the police don't like the current laws, they can hire a lobbyist, same as the Koch Brothers.

I think you missed the point. The police have lobbied against this technology for themselves because they are afraid it will fail when they need to use their weapon in a life saving situation. So "once the policy are happy enough with the technology to use it exclusively" is equivalent to saying "when hell freezes over"

However, the argument for others goes that if stores begin selling smart guns, then legislators will draft laws requiring the technology.

Let them pass the laws. A few days later, when headlines erupt about stolen "smart" guns being used in murders, or some cop getting killed because his "smart" gun wouldn't fire, the laws will go away soon enough.

However, the argument for others goes that if stores begin selling smart guns, then legislators will draft laws requiring the technology.

Let them pass the laws. A few days later, when headlines erupt about stolen "smart" guns being used in murders, or some cop getting killed because his "smart" gun wouldn't fire, the laws will go away soon enough.

Everything I've seen on the topic, legislation included, always says that LEO guns will default to fire rather than safe, whereas civilian weapons would be required to default to safe.

Which is a big part of the reason why a lot of folks are against the idea of a "smart" gun mandate.

And I have no problem with these smart guns for anyone who wants to buy one. In fact, I could see advantages for these guns under certain circumstances if I was in situations where there was a risk my gun would be taken away from me in a struggle. However, personally I would not want one of these. The main reason being that it is another point of possible failure or breakdown that could keep my gun from firing in the event I need to use it. When people need to use a gun in self-defense they usually have less than a second to make that decision and pull the trigger. THere is no time to be fiddling with some gizmo or something that might prevent the gun from firing.

A federal law stating - that the civilian authorities of any given city or state, be subject to the same firearm restrictions, as the civilians themselves. Yes, including the SWAT, and special response teams. Magazine limits, smart guns, etc. After all, if it is OK, for the average citizen to be subject to proposed restrictions, the the police forces should be governed by the same restrictions.

Didn't pay a whole lotta attention to the constitution and the culture at the time. I'll tell you in nice simple words.

At the time the constitution was written and the 2nd amendment passed, that allowed the common citizen to have the exact same weaponry as the military of the era.Gun? Sure thing.Cannon? Yup. That too.Warship? If you can afford it, go for it.

Hmm... Sounds like the police having the same restrictions as random people, including criminals to me. You might want to study up on history again.

Don't forget New Jersey passed it's mandate before the technology had even been invented as a functional device. When it was passed it was merely a concept. Beyond that we don't even know how well the technology behind that Armatrex pistol is going to work out. The pistol in question itself is COMPLETELY ill suited for personal defense purposes. Being.22 LR, a round known for piss poor performance and reliably.

You could easily consider this as just kind of a test bed for future proper defensive arms. And we don't really know just how many ways this equipment might be up having points of failure. I personally imagine that it will be a good decade before any gun maker will consider offering this technology in a significant portion of their wares. We, as people of the gun, prefer things that we know will WORK. Reliability. Is. Critical. Case in point the 1911 is one of the biggest selling handguns on the market. A design invented in... 1911. Over a century old.

Did anyone really think that pro-gun groups would oppose manufacturers giving people the option of buying guns with additional safety devices?

What's really going on is that pro-gun groups are pretty certain (with good reason!) that these smart guns don't work reliably, and likely never will. Plus there's some concern about backdoors that might allow the guns to be deliberately disabled, which could enable smart gun mandates to easily turn into forcible disarmament.

But, given a smart gun that actually works, is very, very close to 100% reliable (meaning it almost never fails to recognize its authorized user, mostly), and isn't subject to control by third parties, I'm sure there would be a great market for them. I'd definitely buy one. I train a little from time to time in techniques for protecting my gun from being taken from me, and while I have considerable confidence in my ability to retain control of my gun, I'd love to have an additional technological backstop.

But it's very unlikely they'll ever be sufficiently reliable. So my response has been from the beginning: Let me know when all of the police forces have adopted them and love them, since cops are at considerable risk of being shot with their own guns. When police are confident that the reliability is high enough they want to carry them, then I'll be interested in looking at the possibility myself.

Mandates, however, make no sense. Build good enough technology and people will buy them. If that's not possible, then mandates are obviously going to meet with stiff resistance.

seems like people protesting them even being sold should mean that it wasn't obvious

Cite? I never saw anything about people protesting them being sold.

Thank you also for informing us that the concept of authorized access to a physical device is never going to be reliable... I'll be sure to removed the keys from my car, and house immediately, I did not know that the technology for those things isn't ready yet, and NEVER will be

Don't be ridiculous. The context and the requirements are completely different. If you need to use a gun to defend your life, it has to work instantly. There can be no fumbling for keys, or rebooting the authentication device. This is why people have also long opposed mandating trigger locks for all guns, all the time.

Oh, and all passwords from my computer clearly not ready for prime time on that technology....

Again, completely different context and requirements.

Thank you for blessing us with your wisdom and keen insight on the opposite of what appears to be reality, as well as insight into what is clearly the future, how so many people could have missed the obvious reality of nothing every working unless it is approved of by you first is beyond me.

I don't think that a.22 is going to satisfy the courts, it being too light of a round for common self-defense or other tasks, but it's an actual problem. I personally don't have any problem with smart gun tech as long as it's optional.

But it's a HUGE expense for not much gain - the vast majority of shootings are either by a user that would be authorized, or by a criminal having ha

To have guns insured just like cars are, so that gun owners will always have enough funds to cover any damages that may ensue from mishandling the weapon.

Do you realize, how dangerous mere speech is? You yell "fire" in a crowd, and people die in the stampede. You say: "It was him!" — and an innocent man gets hung. You say, "Republicans are Nazis!" and an incompetent wannabe gets elected president (with an outright lunatic as vice-president). But nobody is required to carry insurance nor post bond befo

In organized events, I shoot historically accurate reproduction revolvers loaded with real black powder. After use they are cleaned with soap and water and then aggressively lubricated to fight corrosion. Please explain how this technology being forced on me is going to help or even be anything but a nightmare.

Let me know when all the major auto manufacturers voluntarily take the sensor technology used in these "smart guns" and puts it in their emergency brakes to prevent unauthorized passengers from pulling it. And as everyone else has said, let me know when the police and military have this technology in all of their guns. At that point, it'd be worth some consideration. Until then, I think anyone buying one of these things for protection is a fool.

You already have this special secure token that lets you start your vehicle, and by willingly handing that token over to another person you are assumed to have taken some degree of legal responsibility for what they do with said vehicle.

Yup. Except a key is not much added complexity when considering how complex an entire car is.

On the other hand, any locking mechanism for a gun is going to be more complex than the gun itself.

Although the bottom line is that civilians should not be forced into anything that everyone else is not. If the tech is good enough for civilians then it's good enough for a cop or a soldier. If it isn't, then civilians shouldn't have it forced upon them either.

S5.1.1Each vehicle must have a starting system which, whenever the key is removed from the starting system prevents:(a) The normal activation of the vehicle's engine or motor; and(b) Either steering, or forward self-mobility, of the vehicle, or both.

by willingly handing that token over to another person you are assumed to have taken some degree of legal responsibility for what they do with said vehicle

Be specific. What degree of responsibility do you have for the decisions made by another person who is driving your car? Are you talking about handing your keys to someone who tells you in advance that they intend to drive it into a crowd of people at SXSW? Or are you talking about someone who borrows your car to run to the grocery store, but who freaks out along the way and kills some pedestrians? What is your (the car owner's) responsibility for the deaths of those people in the second scenario? What is

Actually, most consumer vehicles are designed to minimise pedestrian injury these days, particularly given that most impacts occur in urban environments and are therefore comparatively low-speed. There are even standards they test against in Europe.

>the vast majority of people have little interest in killing random folks.
I'm not so sure that's true regarding the gun-fondlers. When I go to the range, there will be maybe one other person shooting at round targets. The rest are shooting at human silhouettes, basically fantasizing about shooting people. It's really sick.

That's to try to replicate a realistic situation. Other humans are the most dangerous thing you will ever encounter.

There are approximately 300,000,000 privately owned guns in the US (estimate by NRA). And those are distributed to about 40-50% of the total households in the US. That is a lot of people owning a whole lot of guns.

Of those 300 Million guns in circulation, and those households that own guns, there were only 12,102 deaths (homicides) from firearms for the year analyzed. That same year drunk drivers killed 15,935 alone, not including other means of aggravated homicide by other means. This translates to LESS THAN 1% of all firearms being used in violent crimes. (if I divide the number of gun deaths, by the number of guns, I get 0.00004034%, which is statistically insignificant).

Of all the firearm homicides committed each year, 2/3rds of them are criminal on criminal violence (aka: gang related). And gangs in general are responsible for 50-90% of all violent crimes (with or without firearms), meaning gang members actually DO have an interest in killing folks and committing violence, but even statistics show, that they even prefer to kill other gang members rather than "random" folks.

Not to the same level, or with the same level of anonymity. Guns are small, compact and allow people to remain somewhat hidden when shooting. Cars are much larger, and noticeable in crowds. Lets see you kill or maim someone with a car from the safety of a roof top.

I think you need to give yourself a fucking break.. No where did I state that we should mandate the technology.. I was just pointing out the bad logic that being used to counter the cars analogy, but keep up your strawman.

You, too, might be upset if the government legislated that all pacemakers run on a derivative of the Win9x kernel.

Sure, if you want to buy a pacemaker running Win9x then I don't care because that doesn't interfere with my choice. However, when you start telling *me* my safety critical device has to have an unreliable technology incorporated into it, then damn right you are going to encounter my indignant resistance.

If I were to buy a handgun for personal protection, I'd like to have the authorized user recognition technology so that the weapon couldn't be turned against me in a difficult situation. But I'd also not like it mandated. I might want a custom gun, I might want something that works with gloves, I might want something more reliable than a funky computer, I might want a non-crippled device for any number of reasons.

But I want to make that choice for myself, weighing each instance.

(Please note: I have never owned any guns, I am not a member of the NRA, I just happen to agree with them in this instance.)

I'm not a gun owner either and not a member of any gun related organizations.

I agree the technology sounds useful but mandating a technology that is unproven and not likely to have an impact... I have no idea what the statistics for are for a person being shot by an assailant with their own gun are but I'm sure it's really low. Gun locks are not intended to keep a burglar from using your own gun against you, they are intended to keep accidental discharges from happening and unauthorized users like kids from playing with them.

The state of CA is not a good example of safety evaluation. They require each model of gun to go through an expensive(IIRC, ~$25,000 per) "testing" process. A gun made in 5 different calibers and 5 different colors or finishes requires the manufacturer to pay 25 times the fee to be able to sell in CA. This process has little to do with safety. It's about income for the state and discouraging gun manufacturers from selling in their state.

Few mature libertarians argue that free markets are perfect. Free markets exchange one set of problems caused by government and regulation for another set of problems that people can choose to deal with (or not) through personal responsibility and voluntary cooperation. Human problems exist in both cases, but libertarians tend to prefer personal choice as a response. Painting libertarians as utopians is probably only accurate as far as the college campus goes.

Sigh. There is no such thing as an unregulated free market. Unregulated markets are quickly subverted by a few large corporations to prevent competition and stop new corporations from getting a foothold. Can you name me one unregulated free market that has ever existed?

Sure, ISPs. Anyone is free to install new wires or fiber, they just need to pay off the right people to do it. It's a free market! Obviously, Comcast and Verizon are the only companies that are successful in this market.

No, free markets really are good, the problem is that they very rarely exist in reality. Dumb libertarians try to apply naive "free market" thinking to everything, including roads, showing why their philosophy doesn't work.

Free markets work great when you have high availability of information, so consumers can make intelligent choices, and when there's lots of competitors and the barriers to entry are very low. So, for instance, you don't really need much regulation for things like landscaping or housekeeping; consumers can make their own choices here, there's no shortage of competition, there's almost nothing keeping someone from entering business as a landscaper or housekeeper, etc. Even better, large companies don't have any real advantages here or any way of keeping smaller competitors out of the market (instead, larger companies end up just having higher prices due to their higher overhead). But internet service, electricity service, water/sewer service is totally different because of the natural monopolies in those markets, and the very high barriers to entry, so regulation in these markets is essential. Libertarians simply cannot understand this due to their simplistic thinking, and just cling to the mantra of "free markets will solve everything!".

I find it rather surprising, but generally it is a position based almost entirely on fear, and not on fact. They may well be people who are generally rational in their life, but when it comes to this issue fear and propaganda motivate their position, not facts and logic. They want guns banned because they are scared of them, not because they've done any research and concluded it would make things safer.

You can clearly see it in the grandparent post. Not only the name calling, but the complete detachment from the reality of things. The fact that he believes that a small group of crazies are synonymous with the greater gun owning population. Same deal with how people will generalize the nut jobs at the Cliven Bundy ranch to be the greater gun owning populace.

None stop to think that around 40-50% of all households own a gun in the US, meaning that you know someone who owns a gun, even if you don't know it, and that if that behaviour and thought were the norm for gun owners it would be rampant rather than aberrant.

They are the same as people who will point the finger at religious or environmental extremists and declare that all people of that religion or viewpoint must be extremists and scary.

It is sad, because an informed debate on gun control could be very useful, but it is really hard to have when so much of the "control" side is actually wanting a ban and the reason they want it is fear, not logic. They don't do any research, except maybe to try and look up numbers that support their view. They don't want information, since emotion is the driving factor.

You do realize there's and estimated 100 million gun owners in the United States. By basic probability you're going to have a certain percentage of them that are bug nuts. However that percentage is going to be exceptionally low. Otherwise the internet would have probably caught fire from all the hate mail and threats you're speaking of.

Do you make it a habit of using really idiotic generalizations often in life?

Being the actual point of the second amendment was to allow the citizens to raise arms against their own government or an other government. (They just completed a revolution from their mother government, the founders heads were filled with a lot of idealism, and a lot of distrust in big organizations) So they created the second amendment as a way to insure the citizens feel free and safe.

Being that the United States is one of the most stable country in the world. The idea of a violent revolution is a rath

The history of democracies suggest that violent reviolution is 90% going to happen over the next 100 years. The civil war was only 149 years ago. The riots of the civil rights movement was only 50 years ago. Human nature doesn't change. There will be a military coup or a revolution.

What's interesting to me is that in online conversations about gun control, it's generally the anti-gun people who use such language. Not always, of course, but the overwhelming majority of violent language comes from those who want to restrict rights.

What's even more common from anti-gun people, of course, is ridicule, particularly of forms that imply sexual attachment to guns, or that guns are a mechanism for compensating for sexual deficiency, as though that has any relevance whatsoever. I suppose it's

You're full of shit. The NRA doesn't cater to the crazies but the media makes sure to try and stick them on the NRA every chance they get. The NRA has a membership of over 3 million people. No doubt they have their share of nutjobs just like every large organization but the majority of them are responsible people. No one really has a problem with "smart" guns but most gun owners don't want them mandated. I am actually intrigued by the idea but I'd like the technology to mature a bit more before I purch

I'm not so sure the NRA doesn't use FUD as their primary tactic to keep themselves funded. I'm a gun owner, I have a carry permit, and I own scary 'assault rifles'. I joined the NRA to support my right to own firearms.

Then the NRA started sending me letters.

First, Obama was going to take away all of my guns. Next it wasn't just Obama, but the entire UN coming after my guns. Next the single greatest threat to this nation was Obama. It just kept rolling on and on. Most of the arguments presented in the letters were pure FUD, the kind that would make old Microsoft proud. It was enough to ensure I never give them money again. I've donated to state groups and I'm still looking for a sane national gun lobby.

In regards to the topic of smart guns. I personally don't want one, but I don't see anything wrong with them. I don't think that mandating smart guns will have any effect on gun violence. If I can steal my dads gun to go to school, I can steal the watch it uses to fire. If I'm going to commit a crime with a gun I bought, I bet I bought the device to fire it. That's no reason to stop working on smart guns, but this technology should remain the choice of the end user.

First, Obama was going to take away all of my guns. Next it wasn't just Obama, but the entire UN coming after my guns. Next the single greatest threat to this nation was Obama. It just kept rolling on and on. Most of the arguments presented in the letters were pure FUD, the kind that would make old Microsoft proud. It was enough to ensure I never give them money again. I've donated to state groups and I'm still looking for a sane national gun lobby.

I'm in the same boat (I'm actually glad that I didn't get lifetime membership, at least they cannot claim me as member anymore).

The sane national gun lobby would be SAF. Now, those guys don't concentrate on public propaganda at all, they do only lobbying of political candidates, and participate in lawsuits. But I think their track record on this, especially the latter, is actually better than NRA's - heck, the victory in Heller alone is monumental, and it was a SAF lawyer that secured it.

The people who are most vocal about gun ownership are also the most unhinged.

Classic lazy ad hominem. The usual method of "argument" resorted to by the intellectually lazy and craven nanny statist. An assertion without any evidence, pure empty rhetorical BS. Which you know, which is why you're posting as the coward you are.

The most unhinged people in gun conversations are the ones who have no idea what they're talking about, but do it anyway. Thanks for being today's example.

Given that the majority of injuries caused by firearms are accidents or non-defensive homicides, I would question your statement that "the most important safety feature of a gun" is its ability to actually shoot. Detroit had about 50 defensive homicides in 2012 against 500 offensive homicides; if the gun literally didn't work half the days out of the year, you would be saving 250 lives at the cost of 25, before you count accidents.

Detroit had about 50 defensive homicides in 2012 against 500 offensive homicides; if the gun literally didn't work half the days out of the year, you would be saving 250 lives at the cost of 25, before you count accidents.

if the gun literally didn't work half the days out of the year, you would be saving 250 lives at the cost of 25, before you count accidents

Though you're (deliberately, of course) not counting the thousands and thousands of cases each year where defensive brandishment stops an attack. That number hugely exceeds the number of deaths by any method. I'd be more than happy to fetch out a handgun in such a situation, but would not be happy to find that it can't ultimately work because I've got gloves on, or my fingertips are dirty, or a battery is low, or it's too cold out, or I forgot my magic bracelet. Or it happens to be my wife's gun, since her's was handier than mine.

An unfired gun is the best defensive weapon that exists. The threat of death is the defensive deterrent. Actually firing is the last resort.

If a gang of 10 people are advancing on somebody and the target pulls a gun, all 10 people stop advancing or run away. If you have a taser or stun gun, you're a non-lethal threat to one of them...and you get one shot. Pepper spray is largely in the same boat (plus you have to account for wind). In both scenarios, you have to wonder if the battery has run out or the spray has expired depending on how long you've carried it.

Bullets last pretty much forever. The device is mechanical and has no dependence on a battery. As a defensive weapon it provides the greatest threat to an attacker and the highest degree of reliability to the carrier for those reasons. The second you start shooting it becomes every man for himself.

Up until you shoot, simply brandishing the weapon is an active deterrent without any need to fire. Brandishing a gun is actually considered assault for that reason. People often forget that when talking about concealed carry. It's as if people imagine that the idea is to tote it around so you can relish the opportunity to shoot somebody. I know many people who are not willing to pull the trigger that will carry an unloaded gun just so that they can pull it out in an emergency to diffuse the situation if they need to.

Additionally, when somebody takes a gun to commit a crime or kill somebody, they have every intention of pulling the trigger and are guaranteed to be armed. When somebody is attacked there is a much lower chance of those people being armed and/or able to retaliate so of course those statistics will be skewed.

However, they do oppose people's right not to be shot by a stupid gun that someone takes away from the stupid owner of said stupid gun.

Sure they do, it's just that their idea that the people with the right to not be shot should get a gun and use it to protect themselves doesn't mesh with your idea that nobody should shoot anyone, ever, for any reason. That's not the same thing as opposition.

They absolutely and completely support peoples' right not to be shot by a gun, smart or stupid, or murdered with any other tool, or with fists, feet, etc.

This is why murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, negligent homicide, aggravated assault, assault, reckless endangerment, domestic violence and many related crimes are on the books and enforced, because people have a right not to be a victim of violence, particularly not deadly violence.

Deaths: From 2005-2010, almost 3,800 people in the U.S. died from unintentional
shootings. More than a third of the victims were under 25 years of age.

So, 2005-2010 is six years. 3800 / 6 = 633 (actually it's a bit less than that, the article rounded up; and 2005-2010 was a range of particularly bad years; it's generally lower, and declining). 633 is quite different from 4000. But your claim was even stronger... that those 4000 were all accidentally shot by children. Your citation doesn't provide any numbers on how many of those people were accidentally shot by children, unfortunately. But it's

Reasonable regulation is understandable, but doesn't the government have to prove at some point that they need to be regulating stupidity with guns within the walls of people's homes?

That's a key part of this debate that people sweep under the table with various gruesome statistics (4000 dead each year, etc.). What is the price of freedom from over-regulation, or taken to the extreme, tyranny?

4,000 or so people in the US die every year because they're accidentally shot by children, ranging from toddlers to pre-teens.

Do you happen to have a citation on this? Most studies like this tend to do things like include 19 year olds as 'children' and include deliberate shootings by gang members.

Don't forget that you'd currently have to weed out any shootings by children who happened to get ahold of an officer's gun, normally a parent's. Thus far ALL law and military are completely exempt from any proposed rules requiring smart guns.

Probably not, given that there are only about 230 justifiable homicides a year,

Instead of regulating the devices (which is unconstitutional and pointless) increase the responsibility for gun safety. If you own a gun that is used to shoot someone else, you go to jail for several years. Make responsibility for gun ownership be "outcome based."

This could be made adjustable. The sentence could be determined based on the facts of the case, perhaps increasing in duration based on the severity of the injuries caused (victim's age, permanent damage/disability inflicted, number of victims,